Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

According to Frank Luntz, pb is young at heart and ahead of his time
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 20, 2024 12:52 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (1 comments) [79 views]


House passes HR 8035...$60 Billion Ukraine Aid Package
Government by HatetheSwamp     April 20, 2024 11:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [36 views]


Israel has carried out a strike inside Iran, US official tells CNN, as region braces for further escalation
Military by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 3:31 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (2 comments) [320 views]


How Joe Biden cajoled and courted Mike Johnson to have a chance to deliver aid to Ukraine
President by Curt_Anderson     April 19, 2024 9:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [98 views]


Politifact finally gets one right...
President by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 1:39 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [161 views]


Speaker Johnson moves forward with foreign aid package, even if it risks his job
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2024 5:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (19 comments) [705 views]


Man sets himself on fire outside Trump’s ‘hush money’ trial in NYC
Humor by HatetheSwamp     April 19, 2024 12:02 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [60 views]


Preoccupied Trump too busy to browbeat Mike Johnson into withholding military aid from our allies.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 19, 2024 12:01 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [13 views]


NPR under fire after it suspends editor detesting newsroom partisanship: 'Hard left propaganda machine'
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2024 3:46 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (28 comments) [364 views]


I just voted in the Pennsylvania primary...mail-in
Government by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2024 7:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [122 views]


Politics selectors, pages, etc.
The Bobulinski Transcript: a lot of smoke but no fire.
By Curt_Anderson
February 17, 2024 12:31 pm
Category: Politics

(5.0 from 1 vote)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

Below is transcript of the House Republican-led interview of Tony Bobulinski. I perused it last night with special attention for any of the supposed bombshell evidence he was expected to provide.

Bobulinski makes assertions and allegations but offers nothing that I read in the way of evidence or proof. If anybody can find any evidence that incriminates (besides mere allegations) Joe Biden in Bobulinski's testimony, please cite and share the relevant quotes. The pages are all numbered.

In his opening statement, Bobulinski, mentions he met Joe Biden in Los Angeles and discussed "broad contours of business dealings". That's all he says about Joe Biden knowing anything about Hunter Biden's business dealings (page 14).

Bobulinski complains that the FBI misquoted or mischaracterized what he told them in an interview (page 60-61).

On pages 79-80 Bobulinski accuses the Wall Street Journal's of lying about what he reportedly said during an interview and about the texts and emails he provided the WSJ. In particular when this passage of the WSJ article was read aloud, "Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture." Bobulinski replied, "that's a lie!".




Cited and related links:

  1. oversight.house.gov
  2. wsj.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "The Bobulinski Transcript: a lot of smoke but no fire.":

  1. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2024 12:46 pm

    In his opening statement, Bobulinski, mentions he met Joe Biden in Los Angeles and discussed "broad contours of business dealings".

    That exposes a lie "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" told EFFINdozens of times.

    But, Curt, Bobulinski's value is the narrative he's creating that will be documented with those bank and other financial documents, which you're still pretending away... as far as I know.

    Be patient, m'man.


  2. by Curt_Anderson on February 17, 2024 1:03 pm
    Did you read the WSJ article I linked to?
    Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture
    Former vice president says he had no involvement; corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden

    The WSJ article is "Exhibit 10" below the interview transcript.

    So it wasn't what Bobulinski had to tell the congressional committee or what Smirnov told the FBI that will implicate Joe Biden, it's some yet unseen bank records. Count me among the patient but skeptical.




  3. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2024 2:18 pm

    Question: Are those "corporate records" the documents Comer has been singing about? I don't remember him, on Fox baha baha, crowing about "corporate" documents.

    Oh, and, BTW, are you still denying those Bobulinski emails that are on Hunter's "forensically compromised" laptop?


  4. by Curt_Anderson on February 17, 2024 2:50 pm
    You and OD would know better than me what Comer has been singing about. “Hunter Biden’s laptop” is of questionable provenance.

    I read there have been multiple copies of the hard drive of Hunter Biden’s laptop floating about. The NY Post, CBS News, Rudy Giuliani and House Republicans among others seem to have them. I haven’t heard of any smoking gun evidence being revealed.

    You have been crowing for months that Bobulinski’s testimony will be a bombshell. I take it you were not impressed or at least you cannot cite anything he alleged that’s worth quoting.


  5. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2024 3:00 pm

    I don't think that I've been saying that Bobulinski would drop bombshells.

    I do remember thinking that it'd turn out that those Bobulinski emails on the laptop which lacks provenance, baha, would be the real deal and that he'd testify to the fact that the Flatulent Fool is the Big Guy... and that Joe's been lying about knowing nuthin about the Family's business dealings.

    Bombshells? Dunno about that. But. You've been scoffing about all of that.


  6. by Curt_Anderson on February 17, 2024 3:15 pm
    Given the number exclamation points and capitalized words in your post trumpeting Bobulinski’s testimony, you certainly seemed hopeful something incriminating would be revealed.
    selectsmart.com


  7. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2024 3:44 pm

    In which of my many posts?

    In spite of your inclination to downplay the importance of Bobulinski's testimony, I suspect that it will prove to be significant. He's going to be one of many witnesses. He's not John Dean.

    Still, he's called "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" "the Big Guy." Expect much more on the Big Guy from other witnesses. And, count on it. There'll be more evidence that the Flatulent Fool lied about being completely ignernt about the Family business.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on February 17, 2024 3:53 pm
    Your post which I linked to, obviously.

    "I suspect that it will prove to be significant."--HtS Hope springs eternal.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2024 3:55 pm

    Curt,

    You linked to a whole EFFINthread.


  10. by Curt_Anderson on February 17, 2024 3:59 pm
    Yours was the opening post trumpeting the Bobulinski testimony. Read your headline.


  11. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2024 4:35 am

    And, it was directed toward you specifically because you have made light of the legitimacy of the Bobulinski emails and his testimony...which are the real deal.

    And, and why should ol pb be surprised?, in spite of his damaging testimony, you're still Good Germaning him.


  12. by Curt_Anderson on February 18, 2024 9:09 am
    HtS,
    What “damaging testimony”? In the second paragraph of the opening post of this thread, I asked if anybody could find damaging testimony. I combed through the entire transcript and found nothing. Certainly nothing new. But you seem to have. What did you find?



  13. by oldedude on February 18, 2024 12:52 pm
    #2- Did you read the WSJ article I linked to?
    Hunter Biden’s Ex-Business Partner Alleges Father Knew About Venture
    Former vice president says he had no involvement; corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden


    I guess my question is how stupid you think the businesses, pedojoe, and pedojr are. Are you expecting him to be listed as a "silent partner" on the incorporation paperwork? As you yourself had said before when "teaching" me about your view of "money laundering"🤪, you actually made the remark that a cartel boss wasn't going to have his name on any bank accounts🤣. Really? No kidding? So if pedojoe is taking cuts of money from a business, it's just reasonable he'd be on the corporate paperwork...🤣🤣🤣🤣

    #4- You and OD would know better than me what Comer has been singing about. “Hunter Biden’s laptop” is of questionable provenance.

    I read there have been multiple copies of the hard drive of Hunter Biden’s laptop floating about.


    First, as usual with these cases, I don't go into them much at all. I "maybe" skim headlines, but there's too much that's going to happen to argue about much. You did miss the part however, when I cited and quoted the FBI that "the" laptop that B-ski had was in fact gone through by the bureau and was found to be credible. Secondly, pedojr demanded B-ski give back "his" computer. Unfortunately, the FBI has it in some evidence shed somewhere. I wouldn't say anything about a copy either. I think the bureau has a gag order on it, and no one wants to go to jail or get hit with a million and a half bullshit charges that will put you into bankruptcy before you die.

    #10, 11, 12- I put these all together. The significance of this is "the big guy" issue. This is going to come out later when people talk about how pedojoe knew about this or that or the other thing, and also about money transfers. My guess is they will use the NY crime families to show how they do it, and compare that to pedofamily. BTW, FinCEN/ Treasury hasn't fulfilled any of the subpoena's congress issued to them. So far, they've just kind of told congress to F**k off and refused. Please keep that in mind when you're feeling like "nothing is going on."


  14. by Curt_Anderson on February 18, 2024 1:37 pm
    OD,
    Thank you for that information. Here is the relevant quote from that WSJ article:


    As you probably realize, even if what Bobulinski says is true, had Joe Biden consulted with his son on a foreign business deal while out of office, that would not present any conflict of interest or any quid pro quo.

    Do you have any idea of what HtS is talking about when he says the House committee interview of Bobulinski contains "damaging testimony"?

    If Bobulinski had incriminating texts, emails, etc. why were they not presented to the committee? It's been years, I keep hearing that the incriminating evidence against Joe Biden "is comming", "be patient", and "wait for it".


  15. by HatetheSwamp on February 18, 2024 2:05 pm

    Curt,

    Bobulinski confirmed that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" lied about having no knowledge of the Family's business dealings.


  16. by Curt_Anderson on February 18, 2024 2:38 pm
    HtS,
    Lame. We've been over this numerous times. You cannot seem to get it through your head that knowing or talking to your son's business associates is not the same as knowing or talking about business deals with those business associates. Furthermore there is no evidence that Joe Biden had knowledge of his son's business dealings (not that it's a crime if he did).

    Here is what Bobulinski answered in testimony last week:
    Q. And, as President, Joe Biden has stated that he’s never talked with any of the Biden family business associates. Is that accurate?

    A. That’s an absolute lie.

    The GOP House committee question is in itself a lie. Biden never said he had never talked with any of his son's business associates. He met them socially. Here is Joe Biden's response to a question mentioning business associates:
    Peter Doocy, Fox News: “There’s this testimony now where one of your son’s former business associates is claiming that you were on speakerphone a lot with them talking business. Is that what?”

    President Biden: “I never talked business with anybody, and I knew you’d have a lousy question.”




  17. by HatetheSwamp on February 19, 2024 4:05 am

    Lame. We've been over this numerous times. You cannot seem to get it through your head that knowing or talking to your son's business associates is not the same as knowing or talking about business deals with those business associates. Furthermore there is no evidence that Joe Biden had knowledge of his son's business dealings (not that it's a crime if he did).

    The issue is not what Joe knew. The truth is that Joe misrepresented the degree of his awareness of the Family's business dealings... and now, Hunter is under Federal indictment.

    It's what Joe actually knew that i the focus of the Constitutionally mandated impeachment inquiry.

    God bless America!


  18. by HatetheSwamp on February 20, 2024 12:53 pm

    Holy freakin cow, Curt! I just caught that gay Guy you never heard of discussing Bobulinski's testimony with Miranda Devine. Apparently, you very seriously misrepresented the truth...

    ...by a looooooooong shot!...

    ...a looooooooong, looooooooong EFFINshot.


  19. by Curt_Anderson on February 20, 2024 1:02 pm
    OK, I'll bite. How did I "very seriously misrepresent the truth" by posting a link to the House Republican authorized Bobulinski transcript and quoting from it verbatim?


  20. by HatetheSwamp on February 20, 2024 2:50 pm

    The gay Guy you never heard of considers Bobulinski's testimony stunningly significant.


  21. by Curt_Anderson on February 20, 2024 3:18 pm
    So how is it significant? I posted the testimony. What do you see in it that I don’t see? If there really was anything of significance, I would expect James Comer to be ballyhooIng it on Fox News, Newsmax and OAN.


  22. by Curt_Anderson on February 20, 2024 3:43 pm
    How do we know that there is no evidence in Tony Bolinski‘s testimony implicating Joe Biden? Because the Democrats, not the Republicans, want the videotape of the committee’s full interview released to the public.

    The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee hammered former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski for his testimony to lawmakers last week and accused the key witness of making “baseless accusations and insults,” according to a letter sent to Bobulinski’s lawyer.

    Ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sent the letter on Tuesday, criticizing Bobulinski for making “outlandish” claims during his interview and calling on his Republican colleagues to release footage of the full interview “so that the American people can judge directly who is telling the truth and who is prevaricating at every turn.”
    washingtonexaminer.com


  23. by oldedude on February 20, 2024 8:04 pm
    Here is what Bobulinski answered in testimony last week:
    Q. And, as President, Joe Biden has stated that he’s never talked with any of the Biden family business associates. Is that accurate?

    A. That’s an absolute lie.

    The GOP House committee question is in itself a lie. Biden never said he had never talked with any of his son's business associates. He met them socially. Here is Joe Biden's response to a question mentioning business associates:
    Peter Doocy, Fox News: “There’s this testimony now where one of your son’s former business associates is claiming that you were on speakerphone a lot with them talking business. Is that what?”

    President Biden: “I never talked business with anybody, and I knew you’d have a lousy question.”


    I know it never occurred to you that pedojoe has changed that story several times. That usually indicates someone is lying. The closer people get to the truth, the criminal has to wordsmith a different answer. That's exactly why bobski's testimony is needed. You're saying that he is lying while testifying. Okay, you need to prove that.


  24. by Curt_Anderson on February 20, 2024 8:55 pm
    OD,
    I didn’t say Bobulinski lied. In that particular paragraph I said the committee’s question was a lie. I think Bobulinski is making evidence-free allegations.

    Funny how on one hand you (and especially HtS) say Biden is demented. Now you say Biden is a “wordsmith” cleverly changing his verbiage when questioned.


  25. by oldedude on February 20, 2024 9:16 pm
    The question was a question. The idea of a question is to receive an answer. Bobski could have said that question was true. According to your punctuation, he was emphatic about his answer. And the question was not true. You supported your thought with a potential lie from pedojoe, and something he's changed his wording on several times. That makes more sense than bobski perjuring himself.

    As the evidence mounts, the White House is changing its story about Joe Biden’s involvement in his son’s business activity

    Joe Biden has repeatedly denied discussing business with his son Hunter, vowing a complete “wall of separation” exists.

    This lie has been exposed by email and text message communication as well as numerous eyewitnesses who testified before Congress.

    msn.com


  26. by Curt_Anderson on February 20, 2024 9:32 pm
    OD,
    Bobulinski wasn't quick enough or detail-oriented enough to recognize that the GOP House committee's question was based on a false premise. Biden never said he had never talked with any of his son's business associates.

    I've explained this repeatedly including in comment #16 above.


  27. by oldedude on February 21, 2024 2:48 am
    I've read all of this, and I'm still not believing pedojoe about this. It's that simple. He's changed his story too many times, and like I've said repeatedly, because you say it, doesn't mean I'm buying the snake oil. Not fighting, just disagreeing.


  28. by HatetheSwamp on February 21, 2024 3:20 am

    Curt,

    I honestly can't figure you out. Is this, as merely one example, "Bobulinski didn't lay a glove on my demented Lord and Savior" schtick intended to mock po for the rabid subjectivity, is it, simply, you joshin us?, or are you of unsound mind?

    Either whether you are serious or not, buddy, you ain't right.


  29. by oldedude on February 21, 2024 7:18 am
    Also curt- take a look at the date of both stories on what pedojoe is saying in both. I agree, both of these things were said. The issue is they had to pivot when it was discovered on the laptop that he was involved in the "business." And there's written proof.


  30. by Ponderer on February 21, 2024 8:25 am

    Ooooooo!!!!! Watch out for that bombshell of theirs!!!


  31. by Ponderer on February 21, 2024 8:27 am

    Curt, don't you just love how long they can drone on and on and on about all the damning evidence they have regarding Biden's high crimes and misdemeanors without ever providing the tiniest shred of anything that even hints at any crime having even been committed?

    And how their supposed bombshell testimonies and evidence always turn out to be nothing but flaming lies and asinine bullshit?



  32. by HatetheSwamp on February 21, 2024 8:56 am

    They ain't you Dems. It seems to be a Dem, you have to dream of the good ol days when vigilante justice reigned. You, po, would be the first SS progressive to join a lynch mob but Curt would be elbowing you to get to the front of the line... and isle'd shout, "Crucify Him," louder than you. That ain't the GOPs. Slow and steady wins the race.

    And, as pb's been saying, the GOPs are not going to impeach "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap." Purple district GOPs don't have the political will to do that.

    You can take it to the bank that Mike Johnson told all of them that he's pushing for an Impeachment Inquiry but that, when the time comes... IF it EFFINcomes, he won't pressure anyone to vote to impeach the Flatulent Fool.

    No,...

    ...for the GOPs, the joy is in the journey. Biden Crime Family dirt will be spread out for everyone to see.

    Rachel won't look. Curt's Holy Trinity won't report it. But, news will filter out to Donna's low information voters.

    And, that's the end game.

    Take it to the bank.

    Use it for the down payment on a house, baha.


  33. by oldedude on February 21, 2024 9:44 am
    Lead- she keeps forgetting this is only the investigation portion. Charges haven't been filed, there is no trial yet. But I guess if you don't know the difference, it's all the same.


  34. by HatetheSwamp on February 21, 2024 10:01 am

    OD,

    I don't think po's capable of thinking in those terms. In practice, po seems only to care about grabbing the noose and finding a tall, sturdy tree.

    That's certainly how po behaved when a rationales for the Trump impeachments were presented...

    ...and, I'm pretty sure that's a function of the reality that po centers the universe. What po wants is truth. No investigation necessary.


Go To Top

Comment on: "The Bobulinski Transcript: a lot of smoke but no fire."


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page